three things
1. Wow, haven't written anything here in a while. But, with the acquisition of a new blog at MSN spaces, and the fact that it is summer and therefore boring, it seems that I will be doing more updating these days.
2. Marks
-This is what I'm going to tell my parents, but I'm not sure in what order:
-The good news is that I got an 80% average this semester
-The bad news is that in one of the five classes, I got a 50%
3. some thoughts:
As far as I know, in ethics, there is often nothing less than assertions presented at the fundamental level. If we look at utilitarianism, for example, it says our actons should be guided by the greatest good. And Kant says they should be guided by the categorical imperative. etc.
But a problem occurs when you ask WHY we should act for the good of others, or why we should act according to the categorical imperative, etc. There are two alternatives here.
A. We already DO act with this basis for our actions, and they are just pointing it out.
B. We act with another basis, and this is meant either to change that basis, or to be the proper way to enact that moral basis.
With most moral theories, specifically the two examples given, it would be ridiculous to suggest A. Then, it seems that moralists are appealing to our reason for B, to either
i) make us change the ultimate basis of our choices, or
ii) make us apply it more consistently/effectively.
With this clear, then, we can proceed to ask what it is they are appealing to, and, with respect to (i), if it is possible to change. So, what is the default basis for our ideas that we SHOULD do things?
I think the answer lies in our concepts of pleasure and pain. But we must admit this as a general category, and not anything specific. What I mean by that is, in our analysis, to include all "good" feelings with pleasure and all those "negative" feelings with pain. If we admit this analysis, all human moral behavior fits neatly into the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, although the difference is that our actions may be more or less efficient at acieving these ends, so that killing someone and going to church can both be attempts at achieving happiness, although one is much more of a practical solution.
Any obvious flaws?
2. Marks
-This is what I'm going to tell my parents, but I'm not sure in what order:
-The good news is that I got an 80% average this semester
-The bad news is that in one of the five classes, I got a 50%
3. some thoughts:
As far as I know, in ethics, there is often nothing less than assertions presented at the fundamental level. If we look at utilitarianism, for example, it says our actons should be guided by the greatest good. And Kant says they should be guided by the categorical imperative. etc.
But a problem occurs when you ask WHY we should act for the good of others, or why we should act according to the categorical imperative, etc. There are two alternatives here.
A. We already DO act with this basis for our actions, and they are just pointing it out.
B. We act with another basis, and this is meant either to change that basis, or to be the proper way to enact that moral basis.
With most moral theories, specifically the two examples given, it would be ridiculous to suggest A. Then, it seems that moralists are appealing to our reason for B, to either
i) make us change the ultimate basis of our choices, or
ii) make us apply it more consistently/effectively.
With this clear, then, we can proceed to ask what it is they are appealing to, and, with respect to (i), if it is possible to change. So, what is the default basis for our ideas that we SHOULD do things?
I think the answer lies in our concepts of pleasure and pain. But we must admit this as a general category, and not anything specific. What I mean by that is, in our analysis, to include all "good" feelings with pleasure and all those "negative" feelings with pain. If we admit this analysis, all human moral behavior fits neatly into the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, although the difference is that our actions may be more or less efficient at acieving these ends, so that killing someone and going to church can both be attempts at achieving happiness, although one is much more of a practical solution.
Any obvious flaws?